The Blog

"Their cooperation's too patient, too dramatically foreordained." I find that to be the most interesting element of the movie: how the killers probe and leverage the family's upper-class decorum. That's what makes the egg-borrowing scene the highlight of the movie(s).

Of all the weekends, you, Pat G, pick this one for your “puzzle,” and all its existential implications. As if The “moral arbiter in chief” and His own “objet d’art” don’t have enough going on – all those eggs, so many eggs. Funny games, indeed.

Come to think of it--yeah, why the Coens and not Haneke? Because the Coens came first? Because this was a remake (what about the original then?)? Don't agree about culpability--think they're both guilty--but this is, if anything, more experetly made, screws down tighter with far less effort.

I hope that the reviewers didn't take Haneke's statement about leaving theater literally. In saying that, he probably meant, those who think this movie is made to entertain their sadistic impulses are part of the game. Those who understand the satire are not. He only simplified it with a metaphore. And after all, wasn't the "shock and awe" sadism against the Iraqi civilians just another "funny game" staged for the US audience hungry for a revenge for 9/11? Haneke is a brilliant film maker and a great critic of media. But he isn't simplistic at all. Media is not the only guilty side, for it is shaped upon the audience. For example, if the US public thinks that race should be a primary election issue (despite the all time biggest economy crisis awaiting the US) and that the race should be a reason not to elect Obama, the media will present them with even more such "reasons". In other words, they will feed the darkest fears and affinities of the viewers. But if Americans are inherently racist, nothing can help them out. Especially not the rest of the world who are once again watching in disbelief the progress of this kafkian drama, which is the US elections. If Germans hadn't been anti-semitic, Hitler would have no ground to become what he became. There are Nazi parties in Europe today, who make a lot of trouble to Jewish and Muslim minorities, but they cannot succeed because they don't have sufficient support from the public, although they do manage to do some damage, even kill innocent people almost every day. And it is symphtomatic that the Nazis in Europe are starting to use US imagery, like the US flag. One of them, Joerg Heider, the leading Nazi of Haneke's Austria has been keeping stars and stipes on his office table for years. So it is safe to read some Iraq subtext in Funny Games this time around. Hidden also has it. And Haneke's earlier films were always referencing the war conflicts of the time. Benny's Video, for example is partly about lack of the will on the part of the West (which included the decadent Clinton administration) to stop the genocide in Bosnia. So Funny Games can partly be about the US public's lack of will to stop the same in Iraq. He doesn't say that the US people don't have a bad feeling in their guts because of Iraq. But when ever they watch their favourite horror films they have such a feeling aswell. Im am saying "they" and not "we" because Haneke specified that this film is made for Americans. And don't take Haneke personally. He is not critical only against Americans. His other films are mostly about European "closet corpses". I apologise for my English.

We don’t want to leave the theater (we’re not disgusted = we need it), and the Hanekes don’t want to stop aestheticizing (that is their aaarrrttt = they need it, too). It will go on. I’m still perplexed with our (cinephiles, critics) desire to judge films by how well they “close the empathy gap” and reveal the “human investment.” Violence, exploitive or humanized, is what it is – present, and so will be always splashed upon any canvas. Exploitation is a legitimate style, or politic, or what-have-you. I haven’t seen his Funny Games yet, but I would guess the Coen’s No Country is less obviously provocative, more sincere with its violence – straightforward, pretty, and ultimately, not important (as it is eventually handed over to us, our imagination). Maybe Haneke tries too hard. It is always more fun to leave the theater when the makers thought we would have wanted to stay!

And, yes, I agree with Noel Vera’s defense of No Country’s lionization – it’s probably better.

CIRUMODE--rather than speculate on whether haneke means what he says, i'm suggesting that evidence WITHIN the film makes these speculations moot * because whatever "moral" seriousness attaches to haneke's "leave the theater" invitation seems wholly contradicted by the film's level of craft: what, don't look at this elegantly manipulated object (and it IS elegant, far more consciously worked up, mise-en-scene-wise, than NO COUNTRY's ho-hum dialogue envelope)?--then why do it at all? * or more: why THIS level of sophistication if you're inviting another outcome? J.R.--umm, it's "patent," not patient ... also not to forget that the killers are bourgie too: what about THEIR decorum? * or is bourgie an all-purpose pejorative, redundantly explaining every variety of class pathology? ...

DIGTRAMP--think NOEL's saying FUNNY GAMES is the "more expertly made," with which i'm in agreement ... but maybe i'm reading him wrong

PAT: Yes, I read it that way now. Must see Funny Games. Loved his Piano Teacher (Huppert’s dagger repeatedly stabbing her chest!), yet hated his Time of the Wolf (gorgeous, and boooring!). No-high-ground Haneke’s a hypocrite, which might be OK if he would only own up. He hates Natural Born Killers for the wrong reasons – violence?! What about its sloppy style, Tommy Lee Jones, tired theme (or tired approach), etc. … only the disturbing Rodney Dangerfield scene worked! Haneke doesn’t embrace his contradictions – the worse kind of hypocrite (and artist). (But, sorry, haven’t seen it).

DIGTRAMP--i'm with you on both THE PIANO TEACHER and TIME OF THE WOLF, though the new FUNNY GAMES does occasionally succumb to WOLF's disaffected flatness (presumably that's the idea, but still ...) * no need to accuse haneke of hypocrisy, though, which seems entirely gratuitous; his (speculative) state of consciousness isn't necessarily an issue and, from a reception theory standpoint, may not even be relevant * more significant is how the film connotatively undermines--whether from disingenuity or oversight, etc--what haneke's had to say about it * in other words, the "evidence" is all on the screen

‘Tis what ‘tis. Evidence above all, I agree; (what’s on) the screen’s the thing. But, what about celebrity’s (the auteur’s) part of the culture – essence? soul? – of a work. Certainly Hitchcock, to name one, used his personality/character OUTSIDE of his films to subvert and inform (the INSIDE of) his films. Why can’t we include Haneke’s words as part of the text of Funny Games? Though I agree it’s the text and only the text, isn’t there more to the work than just the work (despite reception theory, and Funny Games itself proving Haneke’s words contradictory)? Or is it just (“performance art”) marketing? Still, Pat G, your point – evidence over diatribe and intention – taken.

I meant Funny Games was better made. Actually liked Time of the Wolf, for what its' worth. And I remember Huppert stabbing her shoulder only once. Hanake's Games (I'm talking about the original) is about as cleanly made a closed system as anything I can think of, and there are limitations to that sort of thing.

NOEL: You are correct. Went to YouTube and the scene was there. It was once, and the shoulder. Memory didn’t serve me. It’s been awhile. Excuse the drama. PAT G: I am looking at the cover for Tears of the Black Tiger right now. This better be good! Inland Empire and The World also this week.

DIGTRAMP--re TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER: you'll be astounded!

DigitalTramp "He hates Natural Born Killers for the wrong reasons – violence?! What about its sloppy style, Tommy Lee Jones, tired theme (or tired approach), etc. …" You're misreading Haneke's critique of Natural Born Killers. In the New York Times Magazine a few months ago Haneke argued that reason that NBK and also a Clockwork Orange were not successful was because they attempted to (and I'm paraphrasing)"convey an anti fascist message using fascist aesthetics", so his critique had everything to do with the style, not the violence itself. I'm a Haneke fan, but I have little desire to see his own verbatim remake of this.....I'm frankly more interested in seeing Ron Howard's version of Cache'. Can you imagine Haneke's "A Beautiful Mind", or even better "EdTV"?????

KFOUTAH: Grand Theft Auto? Yes, found the quote (NBK “is the attempt to use a fascist aesthetic to achieve an anti-fascist goal, and this doesn't work.”), but in light of Pat G’s “evidence” it seems Haneke is a hypocrite, while his Games’ are something else completely (as I’ve said, I haven’t seen ‘em), if not fascist. Can a film, such as A Clockwork Orange, be both a participant in AND critique of fascistic violence. I would say so, as long as such contradictions are marked within the work, because a work that doesn’t know itself is less potent, right? But then, there are always the films where such contradictions – stemming from ignorance/innocence – have their own charm or power. A Clockwork Orange’s violence both titillated and disturbed, thrilled and offended. Do we think less of it because of its moral scope? My point about Natural Born Killers is that it was certainly one of Stone’s sloppier efforts. Bad, bad, bad.

I think the uproar should be more about a director making a shot for shot remake of his own movie, just so it could be in English. I don't speak German, but I would have never guessed Haneke translated to SELL OUT.

SPLIT FIELD--we've already had that uproar and it went nowhere ... but i think a "creator"'s case can be made for FG2, given that it runs so blatantly, almost insultingly, against the prevailing critical bias--i.e., that "artist(e)s" don't repeat themselves, that all the meticulous attentions FG2 obviously displays count for nothing against the presumed obligation to be what we call "original" * though in fact FG2 IS original, as a violation of propriety few "serious" filmmakers would ever dare attempt, arguably closer to professional suicide than anything so commonplace as putting the soul up for grabs * so why IS haneke doing it?--can't be popularity, since aside from the usual filmgoing suspects hardly anyone's lining up to see the damn thing ... which, of course, was predictable from the get-go * nor to score critical points or polish the reputation, since all he's getting for his trouble is grief ... at least from the fraternity that knows and love-hates him best * so damned if i know what's going on inside his head, which has been a problem for me all along: why DOES haneke make the films he does, what possible motivation is there? * not something i can easily relate to, in the manner of: "yes yes, i see why you might want to do that" * which tells you less about him than me ... or maybe that there's a mystery that still needs cracking

I like how George Sluizer remade his own nifty thriller, The Vanishing, into a truly horrible Hollywood film. That was intentional, right? How bold would that be though – to sabotage your own film to make a point.

Opie doing Cache? Say it isn't so... I'm guessing the remake is a test balloon, to see whether his aesthetics will fly or drop in the market that's the ostensible satiric target of the film. If Kurosawa Kyoshi might have had the same opportunity, if he had been given directing reins for the Pulse remake.

I liked TIME OF THE WOLF a lot because it really made me feel what it would be like to be a refugee. You may say Haneke is a hypocrite, but I won't agree after TIME OF THE WOLF. He had a lot of empathy for the plight of those surviving a war not of their making.

I've been having the argument about original creator remakes (using this broadly as you'll see) since Herzog revisited his doc by transitioning little Dieter over to Rescue Dawn. Then there is the added variation of non-creator Van Sant's Psycho. At this point, it seems the permutations have been tried. For Herzog, who can go on to add to his cache of films, maybe it wasn't that big of a project to think of adding on, but Haneke's smaller group makes me wonder how you could commit that much real time to filming funny games twice. Maybe it is the obvious and less intellectual - Man got hell of a lot of US press recently. I haven't had so many people renting Haneke from my store who have no clue what they're getting into in my life. Maybe that was his point. In which case, it is pretty funny.

Hitchcock did a remake, so did Ozu. Even Mizoguchi

GRANT--if self-reproduction/copying aren't deal breakers in other "art" areas--think andy warhol's silk-screen multiples, richard estes's photorealist canvases (traced from projected images), rotoscope animation, countless renaissance variants on sacred themes (nativities, crucifixions, etc)--not to mention monet's multiple cathedrals/water lilies/haystacks, etc, duchamp's "readymades," ernst's bricolages, rap-music remixes and samplers, agnes martin's endlessly repeating grids--why ASSUME they are in film? also your point about "commit[ting] that much real time": an argument prima facie favoring "serious" intent, since why lavish so much care and attention on cynical exploitation, on the frivolous and disposable? * maybe the idea's cockeyed--and admittedly the jury's out on that--but there's nothing obviously slack or "lazy" about it: being a good "forger" requires a lot of work!

The later MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH was a much better film, and was improved upon greatly from the original british version. but, i must say, peter lorre is fucking harsh.